-
.
-
ALutheran Response to Arminianism The issues at stake have concerned more than Calvinists RICK RITCHIE
•
CURE STAFF WRITER
Since the 17th century, Calvinism has would allow that, but that the Arminians been identified with its five-point reply to never issued to the Lutherans a five-point the Arminian party at the Synod of Dort. refutation of their supposed errors. Luth Calvinists often complain that this sum eran pastors and theologians had enough to mary of their theology, though accurate in keep them busy in teaching their doctrine expressing the Calvinists' disagreement rightly and refuting those who directly with their Arminian opponents, presents a attacked them. Little would have been truncated view of what Calvinism really is. , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , Where in the five points do we hear of the covenant or of union with Christ? To properly understand a theology, we must not only know what it says to its opponents, but we need to know how it is to be pre sented on its own terms. If a five-point summary is an awk ward way to present Calvinism, it is downright foreign to Lutheranism. This is not because Lutheranism lacks a defined doctrine of election (it certainly has one). God's gracious election of certain indi Luther's "Arminius" was Erasmus ofRotterdam viduals to salvation was affirmed in Article X ofthe Formula ofConcord, the last of the gained by refuting the errors of somebody Lutheran confessions. The darker side of else's opponents. Today the story is different While predestination has also been considered. As the great Lutheran theologian Hermann presenting its doctrine according to a five Sasse wrote, point system is not the most natural way to present the Lutheran doctrines of grace, it Lutheran theology ... knows ... about the God is almost necessitated by the fact that of Predestination: This God who makes us American evangelicals have come of age responsible for demands which we cannot in an environment where the theological fulfill, who asks us questions which we cannot categories have been defined by others, answer, who created us for good and yet and most of those "others" have been leaves us no other choice than to do evil Arminians. this is the Deus absconditus. This is the God Unless our doctrines are presented in of absolute Predestination. This is the God a way such that the contrasts with who hardened Pharaoh's heart, who hated Arminianism are easily seen, even an Esau even before he was born, the Potter who otherwise clear presentation ottheLutheran fashions pots and before whom one shrinks doctrines will produce confusion. For one and who, nevertheless, thunders in pitiless thing, superficial similarities between the sovereignty at these unhappy creatures, 'Tua two systems could easily be mistaken for culpa!' Thine is the gUilt!1 areas of agreement In addition, there are doctrines that have a fit within the whole The reason Lutheranism has never structure of Lutheranism but will at first been presented according to a five-point glance appear disastrous on account of the scheme is not that it lacks the doctrines that logical implications that would result from
,
nlodernREFORMATION
their adoption into an Arminian system. Ribbed vaulting and massive gargoyles sit splendidly on the top of a cathedral whose stone columns and flying buttresses are designed to support their weight, but these same items can crush a building whose walls are not designed to uphold their massive weight.
Arminian Principles Rejected The best way to compare two theo logical positions is to compare their un derlying principles. According to J.1. Packer, the theological position of the Remonstrants came from two philosophi cal principles: ...fIrst, that divine sovereignty is not com patible with human freedom, nor therefore with human responsibility; second, that ability limits obligation. (The charge of semi Pelagianism was thus fully justified.) From these principles, the Arminians drew two deductions: first, that since the Bible regards faith as a free and responsible h~an act, it cannot be caused by God, but is exercised independently ofHim; second, that since the Bible regar9s faith as obligatory on the part of all who hear the gospel, ability to believe must be universal?
Lutheranism lines up behind Packer and fmds these principles to be abhorrent. While Lutheranism never had the occasion to come up against the five points of Arminianism, it had several opportunities to fight against the underlying Arminian principles. At first glance, Lutheranism might appear to be an amalgamation of Calvin ism and Arminianism because, with regard to the five points, it seems to agree with Calvinism on some points and Arminianism on others. .We must be careful, however, to look at the underlying principles that motivated the positions. When we do this, we will find that Lutheranism is not in fundamental agreement with the Remonstrants on any of the five points. To demonstrate this, I have put the positions side-by-side (see chart on page 12). The two positions of Lutheranism and Arminianism are clearly different at each point, even where there are some
Continued on next page MAY/JUNE 1992
• 11
